WP/19073/2026 of G.PUNITHA Vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL on 25 August 2026

O R D E R

( Order

of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.)

The final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of Censure and the consequential review order passed by the Disciplinary Authority are under challenge in the present writ proceedings.

2. The writ petitioner is working as Bench Clerk Grade – II in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Tiruvarur. She handed over the files relating to the disciplinary proceedings of one Mr.Sakthinathan, working as Office Assistant. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, appointed the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur District, as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry in the said departmental disciplinary proceedings. The writ petitioner herein was appointed as a Presenting Officer. On 18.09.2024, the Judicial Magistrae, Tiruvarur District was promoted by the High Court of Madras and he was relieved. Newly posted Judicial Magistrate took charge on 20.09.2024. Therefore, the writ petitioner had placed the records relating to the disciplinary proceedings of Sakthinathan before

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 12:52:22 pm )

W.P.NO.19073 OF 2026

the newly joined Judicial Magistrate, who in turn, had not initiated any further action and the file was kept pending for a while. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was deputed to the Fast Track Mahila Court at Tiruvarur and she was relieved from the office of the fifth respondent on 22.11.2024. At that time, the entire file relating to the departmental disciplinary proceedings of Sakthinathan in DP 01/2024 remained in the Chambers of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur District.

3. In view of the above factum, there was a delay in concluding the departmental disciplinary proceedings against Sakthinathan, Office Assistant. The delay resulted in issuance of charge memo against the writ petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The writ petitioner denied the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who in turn conducted an enquiry and made a finding that the writ petitioner ought to have sought for extension of time to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in DP 01/2024. She failed to seek such an extension to pursue the matter properly and held that the charge is proved. Accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of Censure. Review filed before the said authority was also rejected.

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 12:52:22 pm )

W.P.NO.19073 OF 2026

4. This Court is of the considered view that, no doubt, public servants are expected to discharge their duties diligently, vigilantly and in the interest of the public. Lapses, dereliction of duty and negligence are misconducts under the Conduct Rules. No doubt, delay in concluding the departmental disciplinary proceedings, on account of certain lapses, may also be construed as misconduct. However, the circumstances under which such delay occurred are required to be considered by the Competent Authority.

5. In the present case, the reason stated by the writ petitioner is that she placed the files before the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur immediately. However, the file was lying in the chambers of the Judicial Magistrate and meanwhile, she was deputed to the Fast Track Mahila Court at Tiruvarur. She was relieved from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur on 22.11.2024. At that point of time, the entire file in DP 01/2024 remained in the chambers of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur. The said explanation, though verified by the Competent Authority, they have initiated action and the Enquiry Officer also has considered the fact that there was a delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner had not sought for extension of time for

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 12:52:22 pm )

W.P.NO.19073 OF 2026

concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Concluding the disciplinary proceedings is the combined action to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority, Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer as well as the delinquent officer.

6. In the present case, charges have been framed only against the writ petitioner, who was the Presenting Officer. No departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer, namely, the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur, who kept the files in his chambers without issuing any instructions or taking any action. In view of the facts and circumstances established, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment of Censure imposed on the writ petitioner is wholly unjustified. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. [S.M.S., J.] [K.G.R., J.]

25.08.2026 Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes / No TK

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 12:52:22 pm )

W.P.NO.19073 OF 2026

To

1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras Chennai – 600 104.

2. The Principal District Judge Tiruvarur District.

3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Tiruvarur District.

4. The Subordinate Judge Thiruthuraipoondy, Tiruvarur District.

5. The Judicial Magistrate Tiruvarur District.

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 12:52:22 pm )

W.P.NO.19073 OF 2026

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. TK

W.P.NO.19073 OF 2026 25.08.2026

( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 12:52:22 pm )